The Canton advocate. [volume] (Canton, D.T. [S.D.]) 1877-1897, 1887-11-03
prohibition burden of expense for
trials is thrown upon the

prohibition burden of expense for
Whiskey trials is thrown upon the
county, but the county derives no rev.
cnue from the traffic.
Again, the the trials of saloon cases
thus far had have resulted in each case,
where conviction was secured, in fine
OF 500, thus leaving the saloon keeper
net gain of from $500 to 5000 under
the prohibition system over what they
would have even under the old COM
paratlvely low license system. In short
! under the prohibition system fully as
much Intoxicating liquor has been sold
us was ever sold in a year prior to it's
Inauguration, and the venders-sucn
as were convicted after a great deal of
expense to the county-have simply
had to pay 500 in the shape of fine,
instead of 5000 in the way of license.
Now, as the cost of running this coun-
ty will be fully as great under prohi-
bition as under license, it is as plain as
anything can be that the people gen.
orally will have to be taxed to make
up the deficiency occasi oned by the loss
Of the license revenue. .s
Important as are the considerations
mentioned above, however, they are by
no means the, only ones. TIE ADvO-
CATE holds that prohibition, as pro-
posed by its advocates in Dakota, is
impolitIc, un Just, and unconstitutional.
1t is impOiitic because it is not now,
never has been and never can be en-
forced as long as intoXicants are man
ufactured, and dead law upon the
statute books is worse than no law at
all, inasmuch as it has ii tendency to
let loose upon other laws the vandal
spirit of innovation and overthrow 1t
is unjust because it proposes to contis-
cate or render worthless vast amount
of property and destroy a business
which has heretofore been protected,
fostered and acknowledged legal, and
which is today licensed by the govern
ment of the United States. 1t is I'M
constitutional because such confisca-
ton is directly antagonistic to the fun
damental principles of a republican
form of government. Although it is
not yet officially announced it is NOR
ally certain that the supreme court of
the tnited States has upset the pro-
hibitory laws of Kansas, and if of Kan
sas those of Iowa and Georgia as well.
Judge Brewer, formerly of the Kan
sas supreme bench, and later of the
United States circuit bench, decide
that the state had the power to prohib-
it the sale and manufacture of intoxi-
eating liquOrs-as a police regulation
for the protection of the public health.
But with this he coupled most i'm
pOrtant condition-that before such a
law could be enforced, the state should
indemnify the owners of such property
for the loss incurred by them. This
decision was appealed to the supreme
court of the United States. and the de-
cision is against the Kansas prohibi-
tiOniStS. This means a similar decis- /
ion itf-Iowa and Georgia, and the COM
plete destruction Of prohibition lin
these states.
But even If prohibition WAS consti-
tutiOnal it would be imrolitic for the
reason that it does not prohibit,
and wholly precludes the possibility of
regulating the traffic, and for these
reasons, as well as for other reasons
too numerous to mention, THE ADvo.
CATE is in favor of high license that
will exclude from the business ire
spOnsible men, and at the same time
hedge the saloon about with such re-
strictlons RS shall place it directly un-
der the control Of the authorities: and
this we believe to be the only practi-
cal way in which the traffic can be
controlled and made to yield revenue
for the public benefit.